“State Supreme Court Says Out-of-State Firms Can’t Secretly Record Californians’ Calls; Justices determine that out-of-state businesses can’t surreptitiously record calls, even if it is allowed in that state”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article headlined “No secret taping here, court rules, even if legal in caller’s state.”

“Chief justice vetoes idea of televised hearings”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Chief Justice John Roberts poured cold water Thursday on suggestions to televise U.S. Supreme Court hearings, saying that keeping the proceedings free from outside distractions was more important than putting them on public display.”

And The Orange County Register reports today that “Roberts defends the judiciary; Chief justice says he will fight to preserve independent courts.”

“Court Restores Neb. Same-Sex Marriage Ban”: The Associated Press provides this report.

BREAKING NEWS — Eighth Circuit reverses federal district court ruling that had declared in violation of the U.S. Constitution an amendment to Nebraska’s Constitution barring same-sex marriage: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

The federal district court’s ruling, which the Eighth Circuit reversed today, can be accessed at this link.

“Judge: Nomination Advances; Holmes receives panel’s approval.” The Tulsa World today contains an article that begins, “A Senate committee approved by voice vote Thursday the nomination of Jerome Holmes to an appeals court slot following a brief discussion that broke no new ground on the Oklahoman’s controversial articles on issues such as affirmative action. Sending Holmes’ nomination to the floor by a divided voice vote saved members of the Senate Judiciary Committee from going on record for or against.”

“Conservative justices carry free-speech banner in Randall“: Douglas Lee has this commentary online at the First Amendment Center.

Recent archived video of interest available online from C-SPAN: From yesterday, “Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) Announces Deal With Bush on NSA Surveillance Review“; “Senate Armed Services Hearing on Hamden Ruling“; and “David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center Professor, discusses the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision and how Congress, and the President should respond.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these video segments.

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained audio segments entitled “Hearings on Guantanamo War Crimes Trials Continue” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Visiting the Prison at Guantanamo Bay” (featuring Ted Koppel).

And yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Senate Panel: Use Military Code for Detainees” (featuring Nina Totenberg).

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Supreme Court explains Downey deal; Despite seeming irritated by the JQC compromise, justices approved a deal to let the judge retire at the end of the year”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

My coverage from yesterday appears in a post titled “Supreme Court of Florida approves stipulated resolution of judicial ethics proceeding against trial court judge who admitted to charge of ‘Habitual viewing of pornography from the courthouse computer.’”

D.C. Circuit affirms refusal to certify class action in case against Delta Air Lines involving lost luggage and the Warsaw Convention’s limitation of liability for the international air transport of people and property: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“‘Gang of 14’ wary of Haynes”: The Washington Times contains this article today.

And The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports today that “‘Gang of 14’ huddles in Pryor’s office over Bush pick for bench.”

“Factual errors cited in cases against detainees; Lawyers demand new trial system at Guantanamo”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“Gonzales takes issue with justices’ detainees ruling”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, who as White House counsel played a key role in shaping aggressive policies on the treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism, said Thursday that he was surprised by the Supreme Court’s ruling that they were entitled to some protections under the Geneva Conventions.”

“Roberts Stresses Courts’ Independence; The chief justice tells a 9th Circuit conference he wants to build better relations with Congress”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court shuns TV cameras; Chief justice speaks to law conference.”

“Too Good for Marriage”: Today in The New York Times, Law Professor Kenji Yoshino has an op-ed that begins, “Last week, New York’s highest court voted 4-to-2 that a legislative ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the state Constitution.”

“Bush Would Let Secret Court Sift Wiretap Process”: This article will appear Friday in The New York Times, along with a news analysis headlined “Restoring a Constitutional Balance.”

And the McClatchy Newspapers provide reports headlined “Bush agrees to have domestic eavesdropping program reviewed” and “Bush officials send Congress mixed signals about military tribunals.”

“How to Measure a Federal Appellate Court’s Record of Success Before the U.S. Supreme Court”: That’s the provisional title of the next installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com. It is due to appear online by 11 p.m. tomorrow night.

“Ethics Essentials: A Primer for New Judges on Conflicts, Outside Activities, and Other Potential Pitfalls.” The Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States has issued this very interesting document.

Various federal appellate courts have begun to issue proposed local rules to address Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which will allow citation to all non-precedential federal court opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007: I enthusiastically favor removing all limitations and prohibitions on the citation of non-precedential opinions, and for that reason I strongly favor Rule 32.1. But, for the reasons I explained at length in an earlier law.com column, I wish that the rule did not contain its prospective-only limitation, which makes the rule applicable only to non-precedential decisions issued on or after January 1, 2007.

I am pleased to report that some federal appellate courts have begun the process of adopting local rules that specifically address whether those circuits will allow or prohibit the citation of their own non-precedential opinions issued before January 1, 2007. As best as I can tell, the circuits that have thus far issued proposed local rules plan to continue as to their pre-2007 non-precedential decisions the rule either allowing, prohibiting, or discouraging citation now in place in those circuits.

For example, the Fourth Circuit has proposed a local rule that continues to discourage citation of non-precedential rulings issued before January 1, 2007. The Federal Circuit has proposed a local rule that, at least by implication, appears to continue to prohibit the citation to its non-precedential rulings issued before January 1, 2007. And the Fifth Circuit has proposed a local rule that continues to allow the citation to all of its non-precedential rulings regardless of when issued, although that local rule mistakenly suggests that citation to non-precedential rulings issued before January 1, 2007 will be allowed pursuant to Rule 32.1(a). In actuality, Rule 32.1(a) is expressly limited in its effect to opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007. Perhaps my friends in the Fifth Circuit who read this post can have the proposed local rule altered to fix this minor error.

“The Dangers of Trying To Be Colorful”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has this post about a Ninth Circuit dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in a case presenting an issue of statutory construction that was the subject of a column I wrote for law.com headlined “Less Is More: When Courts Decide a Law Means the Opposite of What It Says.”

Fifth Circuit allows DeLay appeal to proceed without delay: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this report.

Metropolitan News-Enterprise is reporting: Today’s issue contains articles headlined “Man Unsuccessfully Sues Entire Ninth Circuit Bench for Conspiracy” and “Business Web Site Insufficient to Confer U.S. Jurisdiction–C.A.” My earlier coverage of these rulings appears here and here, respectively.

“Suspect Padilla Gets Access to Secrets”: The AP provides this report.

“Court Says Recording Calls Violates Rights”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The state Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that Californians’ privacy rights are violated when their telephone conversations are secretly recorded by out-of-state callers.”

Today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of California begins:

The complaint in this case alleges that employees at the Atlanta-based branch of defendant Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) — a large, nationwide brokerage firm that has numerous offices and does extensive business in California — repeatedly have recorded telephone conversations with California clients without the clients’ knowledge or consent. These facts give rise to a classic choice-of-law issue, because the relevant California privacy statute generally prohibits any person from recording a telephone conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation, whereas the comparable Georgia statute does not prohibit the recording of a telephone conversation when the recording is made with the consent of one party to the conversation.

You can access the complete decision at this link.

Supreme Court of Florida approves stipulated resolution of judicial ethics proceeding against trial court judge who admitted to charge of “Habitual viewing of pornography from the courthouse computer”: You can access today’s per curiam ruling of Florida’s highest court at this link.

According to today’s opinion, “In addition to receiving a public reprimand, the stipulation requires that Judge Downey (1) retire from judicial office at the end of his term on January 1, 2007; (2) not serve as a senior judge; (3) provide a formal letter of apology; (4) continue to have restricted email and internet access; (5) continue his psychological counseling; and (6) not file for reelection and never again seek election or appointment as a judge.”

“Top court turns down Wal-Mart — cities can ban big-box stores; Justices decline to take up appeal of Turlock ordinance”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

The Sacramento Bee reports today that “Justices deliver blow to Wal-Mart; Retailer loses bid to overturn Turlock curb on Supercenter.”

And The Turlock Journal reports that “State Supreme Court declines Wal-Mart appeal.”

“Both Pebble Beaches can exist, court says; Golf course loses suit against British bed and breakfast”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. My earlier coverage appears here.

Eighth Circuit panel rejects constitutional challenges to provisions of Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act requiring sex offenders to register with the State as well as an Arkansas criminal statute prohibiting certain registered sex offenders from living within two-thousand-feet of a school or daycare center: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Suit Seeks Identity of Bloggers Who Claimed Abuse by Rabbi”: The blog “Religion Clause” today offers a post that begins, “Public Citizen last week announced the filing of two motions in a pending California case in which Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, who was accused of sexually propositioning women who came to him seeking spiritual guidance, is trying to force Google to disclose the identities of four anonymous bloggers.”

Archived video of interest available online from C-SPAN: By clicking here, you can view online Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for both Fourth Circuit nominee William J. Haynes II and Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, a Justice on the Supreme Court of Guam who has been nominated to serve on the Guam federal district court.

By clicking here, you can view online yesterday’s “House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Hamdan Ruling.”

Finally, by clicking here, you can view online a segment from yesterday’s broadcast of “Washington Journal” described as follows: “Michael Noone, Catholic University Law School Research Professor, discusses the Geneva Conventions, focusing particularly on humane-treatment provisions of Article 3.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these video segments.

“More Salon vs. Judge Boyle”: Ed Whelan has this post today at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Congress Finds Solution for Guantanamo Trials Elusive” and “Yoo Downplays Importance of Supreme Court Ruling” (RealPlayer required).

“Yes, Counsel Haynes, There Is a Supreme Court”: Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson has this essay today.

“[W]e must determine who has the right to conduct a review for privilege of documents subject to a grand jury subpoena directed to a third party who possesses the documents but has not yet produced them to the government: the targets of the investigation whose rights of privilege are potentially implicated, or the federal government, operating a ‘taint team’ behind a ‘Chinese wall’ or protective screen.” Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs today issued this interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Boyle: Conflicts not intentional.” This article appears today in The Raleigh News & Observer.